It's interesting to me how many people are offended by board game video makers who get rules wrong in their plays. Particularly when the playthroughs are not meant to be rules explanations.

I have played enough board games at meetups to know that the board game community at large rarely if ever plays board games correctly.

So why do we hold board game video uploaders to a standard we don't keep for ourselves?

I don't know much about the board game community at large. People are transitory. Videos are eternal. IMO, when one posts a video review of a game, and most especially when one posts an allegedly instructional video for a game, this video should be accurate with regards to the rules. I don't mean they need to repeat the rules in full detail, but what they do say about them should be correct. (This is one reason I prefer simple rules.)

Session videos are another matter. Humans interacting with each other are often messy and unpredictable. So, showing them getting the rules wrong is probably more accurate, a form of video verité.

"This is a really weird game, and you’ll find that most people will not want to play this."

If you're going to spend the time to do a "video review," then at least bother to learn the rules. For me, it shows that there are too many "video reviewers" now. People are too concerned with being "the next big geek thing" instead of actually sitting down to learn a game and then do the review. And the BGG audience is culpable as well, as many people moan & complain if a reviewer hasn't cranked out another video review in the last 24 hours.

So it's a vicious cycle: * Reviewer wants to be popular, * viewers demand more reviews, * reviewer flies through games that he/she knows little about to satisfy demand, * rinse & repeat

"Wuhhh... I think so, Brain, but if a ham can operate a radio, why can't a pig set a VCR?"

fightcitymayor wrote:

If you're going to spend the time to do a "video review," then at least bother to learn the rules. For me, it shows that there are too many "video reviewers" now. People are too concerned with being "the next big geek thing" instead of actually sitting down to learn a game and then do the review. And the BGG audience is culpable as well, as many people moan & complain if a reviewer hasn't cranked out another video review in the last 24 hours.

So it's a vicious cycle: * Reviewer wants to be popular, * viewers demand more reviews, * reviewer flies through games that he/she knows little about to satisfy demand, * rinse & repeat

I'm not sure this adequately covers all reasons one may get a rule wrong. More often than not, when I get a rule wrong in my videos, it is because I misspoke rather than played the game improperly. I wont, EVER, state that I play everything right 100% of the time, but if I played something wrong and my opinion was based on it, I'm glad to go back and revisit the game to address that concern.

When I watch a video its not that big a deal if they get a rule wrong. Everyone gets rules wrong. So a rule slip up on a video isn't really a big deal and to watch a video and get mad at something like that seems silly to me.

Everyone makes mistakes and all players can get rules wrong, either forgetting something or not interpreting a rule correctly, etc. which can happen easily when trying to play through it on the spot in front of a camera. So it's understandable and certainly no reason to get uptight over it.

Having said that, people turn to reviews to get objective and opinionated insight on a game from someone who is presenting him/herself as experienced and knowledgable enough with the game to give a worthwhile review. When they are caught in something that is glaringly obvious to be wrong and far off base, then that throws doubt to the validity and value of the review. Can you trust a sloppy review from someone who maybe have given only a cursory play of the game?

That's why it's better to get as many reviews and playthroughs for a game as possible. Watch and read as many as possible to get a collective sense of how a game comes across rather than just base your game purpose on a single review. It's understandable, albeit maybe a little annoying, when reviewers can get something wrong, but multiple reviews will help give a clearer picture.

The rulebook exists for a reason. People who know the rules know them. People who don't know them should probably read the rulebook, not watch a video review and hope to learn it.

And I think you are going to get two types of people who make video reviews of games. People who are experts with video making, and people who are experts with games. And the best ones overlap in the middle but it's not really fair to rail on the extreme other sides for poor video quality or fudged rules, becasue they probably are doing it out of excitement for a hobby! And probably not being paid, as has been alluded to.

The rulebook exists for a reason. People who know the rules know them. People who don't know them should probably read the rulebook, not watch a video review and hope to learn it.

People use those video reviews to decide whether to buy a game or not. And if something about the rules as explained rubs you the wrong way and you decide not to buy a game, but it turns out that the reviewer explained them wrong... well, it's not exactly the end of the world there, but still, you've missed out on a game you would otherwise have enjoyed.